SUBMIT A COMPLAINT

Thrifty Rental Carfalse damage claim

1
A Aug 14, 2018

To Whom this may Concern:
My name is Alan Jones and I'm writing to dispute a claim made by Dollar Rental Car Company. As a former member of the SIU (Special Investigations Unit) for Liberty Mutual Insurance, I am very knowledgeable when it comes to reading claims and documentation. I will first begin with the background of the rental and then break down the information provided with my discrepancies as well.
Rental:
I rented the car on July 16th, 2018at approximately 8pm. I was given the rental paperwork and a check out (check in) carbon paper to fill out. Told to walk around the vehicle and mark any damage that I noticed. Went outside and walked around the vehicle and marked the damage I could see. I noticed that the rental agreement didn't have anywhere near the damage that I marked, so I was confused from jump how they missed what I saw. I proceeded to take the form back inside, but the gentleman I was originally working with was busy, so this young lady took the form. I told her that I noticed a lot of damage and there may be more that I could really see that well due to the darkness and lighting. It looked like the car was sideswiped on slide up against something. She said and I quote, "As long as you marked damage in the general areas we won't charge you for anything. I then told her I think someone should could and verify everything I marked to see they missed a lot of damage on their inspection of the car. She proceeded to tell me there was no need and they believed me.
I returned the vehicle on July 30th, 2018 at approximately 8pm. When I brought the information in I asked the gentleman to do a walk around of the vehicle and I was told again there was no need. They would let me know if there were any additional charges. On August 11th I check my mail box and all of a sudden have this claim letter from PurCo Fleet Services, saying Thrifty is saying I caused damage to their vehicle, but I may not have even noticed it. I knew then something wasn't right because that vehicle had no more damage to it then what it had when I rented it. So on Monday morning (Aug 13th, 2018) and afternoon I called Deanne Johnson, Claims Specialist, to get more information on these so called damages and information. When I had not heard back from her, I proceeded to contact Thrifty Customer Service about this issue. They instructed that I put in a complaint regarding the rental location and gave me the number to Thrifty claims department. When I called them, they said they had no information regarding any claims on my rental so they could not assist me.
On August 14th, 2018 Deanne Johnson called me back and sent me the 23 pages regarding the claim.
Discrepancies:
1. As you can see by the original rental agreement, I didn't initial the two damages they marked on the driver's side door area and the area below the passenger side headlights. This was due to me not agreeing to what they marked down from their inspection.
2. On Check Out/In form #1109173? (Mileage out 12191)
• No damage was marked
3. On Check Out/ In form #[protected] (Mileage out 15609)
• No damage was marked
4. On Check Out/ In form #[protected] (Mileage out 17083)
• Damage on driver's side door area marked
5. On my Check Out/ In form #[protected] (Mileage out 17355)
• Marked damage to Rear Bumper, Driver's side doors, Front bumper and passenger side front door. *This is what I saw from a standing position walking around the car at night in limited lighting.

Now with all this information, apparently these were the last rentals of this vehicle, but what alarms me is the lack of proper inspections by the customers, and the rental car company location.
Another issue is, how do I notice all this damage but yet Thrifty didn't notice it to put on my rental agreement prior to me getting it?
All of a sudden when I rent it they become these great inspectors, but nobody noticed any of the damage I marked prior to?
Why didn't the rental agents want to verify any of the damages I marked down because clearly we had two different inspections?
6. The pictures of the front bumper with scratches and cracked was already marked on my Check Out/ In sheet. I noticed the scratch first and then noticed the cracked when I looked closer. Hence why they are written the way they are. When standing above it you can only see the scratch but you can see the crack when you bend down. You also have to get close like the person took the picture to see it.
*Pictures were taken in the daylight in close range

7. These pictures look are also taken at close range and can't be seen at night while doing a normal walk around. Which I told the agents I could only see what I could see at that time. Pictures from a normal standing walk around position, this cannot be seen. Why no pictures like that were taken to show how it could be missed on a walk around at night?

8. These pictures are also taken at real close range I would have never seen these damages at night on a normal walk around. Look how close they had to get to show it.

9. These pictures of the rear bumper Are taken real close in daylight, but the one from a normal standing position explains what I been saying. I would have never been able to see this standing up and also in dim lighting at night. You can barely see it in the day light from a normal standing position.

10. In regards to the driver's side mirror, there is no damage to the mirror regarding scratches or anything. So they would indicate it wasn't hit or run into by anything. That's not even damage I would have noticed in a walk through. But it's very odd how they noticed it with any scratches or anything that would trigger you to look there. Once again look how close they had to get to show the damage. How would I see that in a walk through?

11. They then mentioned some penny size dents in two places, driver's side hood and passenger's side rear high quarter panel. Even in the pictures it took me awhile to notice where they were talking and it was a close up picture. So tell me again how I was supposed to see this from a normal walk view at night with dim lighting?
It very odd how they spotted direct places to look for damage, but didn't notice any of the damage I marked before I took the rental? Is thrifty basically saying the pervious inspectors didn't do their job correctly? Or did they overlook certain damage on purpose?

So in conclusion I feel the damage I am being blamed for was already on the vehicle and I didn't get to notice it all during my walk around. But as you can see I marked off a lot more damage than what Thrifty was claiming was on the vehicle. Why is that? How did these great inspectors seem to miss all of these things after the last person who rented it. How come now of the damage I reported prior to use was recorded or even seen? Then when I offer to have them look it over with me they decline and say, "As long as you marked general areas we can tell there was existing damage. Which is why I told they I can only see what I saw due to the lighting at night at the Airport. Then when I rent it nobody wants to check it in when I'm there, they wait until I'm gone and then file a claim on damages I didn't cause or even see prior to my rental. The only major area that we both reported was the front bumper below the grill. They marked the same area I did (an S & S/C).

My markings show the car looked like it was side swiped which I told the female agent when I went in, so damage on that side (driver's) would normal based on my initial findings. There was damage that I marked to bumper below the grill already, but I guess I damaged the vehicle in the exact spot I say it already was damaged at? The damage to rear bumper is only seen close up which is also proven in the picture of the whole back end of the vehicle. What still confuses me is how the inspector knew certain places to go look for damage, but yet didn't nobody notice any of the damage prior to me renting it that I found? What it seem like is that this vehicle was damage and this Thrifty location knew about it, but was planning on charging me for the damage because I declined their insurance. The damage Isn't even relatable or even in the same general areas they claim. It's all over the vehicle which seems suspect.

false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim
false damage claim

  • Updated by AJ76 · Aug 14, 2018

    Spokane, WA not Spokane, MO

Post your comment